|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 29, 2006 11:40:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 29, 2006 11:48:54 GMT -5
No anthropologists *TODAY* uses those terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Jan 29, 2006 11:58:00 GMT -5
In Louisiana the slaves from Mali were mande types like Bambara,Malinke etc..The ones from Senegal/senegambia were Wolof,Malinke,Mandinka etc.. Wolof man and woman from Senegal   Mandinka man and Bambara female   According to the French this was the typica look of a mende male type...  On the other hand I knew some AA in my city, the difference to Nigerians and other SSA was just striking - I suspect thats social selection because that was no exception, because she looked very harmonious and like an Aethiopid Nigeria is made up of many tribes and they all don't really have the same look.So it really depends on the tribe F.e.Yorubas having high cheek bones/almond eyes which from what I've seen Igbos don't have as much.Also,you might not realize it but most pseudo EA looking AA's don't show any clear signs of admixture. |
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 29, 2006 12:10:12 GMT -5
IMO, we African-Americans are our own subrace within sub-Saharan Africans
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 29, 2006 12:16:37 GMT -5
No anthropologists *TODAY* uses those terms. But only because they ignore the typological system as a whole. Every useful and accurate typology which groups physical feature combinations and tries to describe different evolutionary tendencies, specialisation, would produce the (basically) same categories. So its the, mainly politically motivated trial to speak just of gradients and ignore typological differences though even the gradients can be better explained and visualised with typological terms. We see the same stupidity if its about ('normal') psychological type - "humans shouldnt be categorised and put in schemes" some PC idiots parrot... Well, facts speak for itself and if the descriptions fit the present reality, whats the case, the difference between f.e. Sudanid and Palaenegrid is just STRIKING, then its useful and temporary, fashionable, politically influenced failures of modern anthropology might be corrected in the future again. Thats true for some which are of a more refined, more leptomorphic and progressive Sudanid variant (like those "Westernised Malians") - in which its not really clear whether this is specialisation from the inside or admixture from the outside partly.. |
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 29, 2006 12:21:18 GMT -5
The terms are all bankrupt, there is so much variation within sub-Saharan Africa itself thats its totally arbitrary to label something Sudanid and or palenegrid. Those terms aren't used because they're scientifically bankrupt terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 29, 2006 21:32:32 GMT -5
The terms are all bankrupt, there is so much variation within sub-Saharan Africa itself thats its totally arbitrary to label something Sudanid and or palenegrid. Those terms aren't used because they're scientifically bankrupt terms. So you say there can't be a typology based on features combinations which could distinguish 75+ percent of the people from Senegal from 75+ percent of the Kongo region? Sure there is a overlap but... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2006 22:07:21 GMT -5
I heard in places like D.C., the African Americans are really white looking. Hehe, I went to DC almost two summers ago and none of the blacks (and there were a lot of them) I saw there looked white to me. |
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Jan 30, 2006 12:20:11 GMT -5
IMO, we African-Americans are our own subrace within sub-Saharan Africans I don't know about that but I know for sure that you can find any of those "black" african types in the black populations of the americas except maybe those Dinka/Nuer types. |
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jan 30, 2006 12:24:23 GMT -5
Charlie, would you consider a "pred european" population with 16% amerindian admixture to be white, mestizo, or their own "white sub race"?
|
|
Melani2333
Full Member
http://www.livingwaters.com
Posts: 194
|
Post by Melani2333 on Jan 30, 2006 13:00:26 GMT -5
IMO, we African-Americans are our own subrace within sub-Saharan Africans I bascially agree with this, but I take it a step further. That's also why I reject the term "African-American". Black Americans are distinct from Africans. So are White Americans from Euros and any peoples whose ancestors have lived in the US for the past 300+ years. White Americans are not a bunch of Europeans either.  Neither are these fake White Indians.... Each group is racially distinct but with some overlap. Americans, period, should be their own race group. Acknowledge ancestry, etc but today's American "racial types" for the most part, are too distinct and are different enough (among all Black, Indian and White Americans, not to mention fake raced "Hispanics" ) to just be "American" of x, y, z sub-ethnicity.  |
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 30, 2006 13:17:41 GMT -5
IMO, we African-Americans are our own subrace within sub-Saharan Africans I bascially agree with this, but I take it a step further. That's also why I reject the term "African-American". Black Americans are distinct from Africans. So are White Americans from Euros and any peoples whose ancestors have lived in the US for the past 300+ years. White Americans are not a bunch of Europeans either. Neither are these fake White Indians.... Each group is racially distinct but with some overlap. Americans, period, should be their own race group. Acknowledge ancestry, etc but today's American "racial types" for the most part, are too distinct and are different enough (among all Black, Indian and White Americans, not to mention fake raced "Hispanics" ) to just be "American" of x, y, z sub-ethnicity. I agree with you 100% Melanie, especially about those fake Native Americans who look completely white but consider themselves as Native Americans. I agree black or Afro-Americans overlap with Africans predominantly but are still distinct enough away from Africans to be our own entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 30, 2006 13:19:51 GMT -5
Charlie, would you consider a "pred european" population with 16% amerindian admixture to be white, mestizo, or their own "white sub race"? I would chose the latter, white own subrace since they're obviously not European and not nearly as admixed to be mestizos. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 30, 2006 13:24:56 GMT -5
Sorry, but as long as they neither mixed nor changed their type drastically they are in the same categories as Europeans and racially they are for sure Europeans.
Dont mix up ethnicity and race, thats why it is so important to speak of racial types too, because its not the same in every case. F.e. the Nuer-Dinka are pred. Nilotid, but not all of them are Nilotid.
African Americans can be considered an ethnicity, but they are racially only Negrids of different types and with other admixture.
A new race comes not up by mixture alone, it comes up by selection. If there are no selective pressures, nothing new will be formed and things will repeat over and over again with recombinations of the basic types of the population - but no new type.
For being racially a type on its own you need a dominant type, now Glowatzki even showed a typical American Negroid, both a mixture of various Negrid types (Sudanid being pred.) and Europoid influences. But still the majority of people is this or that and as long as their is no racial standard, which cannot be there since there was no selection, they are just racial types of Africa combined with those of Europe and America on a low level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 30, 2006 13:30:31 GMT -5
Sorry, but as long as they neither mixed nor changed their type drastically they are in the same categories as Europeans and racially they are for sure Europeans. Dont mix up ethnicity and race, thats why it is so important to speak of racial types too, because its not the same in every case. F.e. the Nuer-Dinka are pred. Nilotid, but not all of them are Nilotid. African Americans can be considered an ethnicity, but they are racially only Negrids of different types and with other admixture. A new race comes not up by mixture alone, it comes up by selection. If there are no selective pressures, nothing new will be formed and things will repeat over and over again with recombinations of the basic types of the population - but no new type. For being racially a type on its own you need a dominant type, now Glowatzki even showed a typical American Negroid, both a mixture of various Negrid types (Sudanid being pred.) and Europoid influences. But still the majority of people is this or that and as long as their is no racial standard, which cannot be there since there was no selection, they are just racial types of Africa combined with those of Europe and America on a low level. I disagree, white Americans are not biologically Europeans in America no more than black Americans being Africans in America biologically. |
|
Neither are these fake White Indians.... 
